The court upheld the dismissal of the petition, emphasizing the need to present substantial evidence in interlocutory appeals.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU S.Krishnamoorthy ..Petitioner(s) in both CRPs Vs.

S. Devika ..Respondent(s) in both CRPs Prayer :- These petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Common Order dated 22.07.2021 in I.A.Nos. 9 and 10 of 2020 made in H.M.O.P.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan For Respondent(s): No appearance

C O M M O N O R D E R

Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the common order dated 22.07.2021 in I.A.Nos.9 and 10 of 2020 made in H.M.O.P.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2008. However, within a short while, in view of differences of opinion and incompatibility, they have started living apart from the year 2009. The respondent had filed an application for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said application, the petitioner had also taken out an application for a direction to return the Sridhana items and also for interim maintenance. The HMOP as well as the interlocutory applications for the aforesaid reliefs were all ordered by the Court as exparte.

3. He would submit that the respondent is a qualified teacher and working in a private school and therefore, she is capable of maintaining herself. Suppressing her employment, an application for interim maintenance has been sought for and the Court below had also ordered the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- towards the litigation expenses.

4. He would further submit that the father of the respondent in an earlier proceedings had admitted that all the sridhana items had been returned. He would submit that the respondent suppressing the sridhana items are returned had filed the present application only to harass the petitioner. Therefore, he would submit that the order directing to return the sridhana items as well as the payment of maintenance and litigation expenses is wholly arbitrary and seeks this Court to set aside the same.

5. In spite of notice having been served on the respondent, the respondent had neither chosen to appear in person or entered appearance through counsel.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and I have also gone through the materials placed on records.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is not entitled to the relief granted in the interlocutory application filed by the respondent. It is the case that the respondent is employed and has own source of income, and that the respondent father in an earlier HMOP filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal right had admitted the return sridhana items.

8. It is to be noted that the petitioner had earlier suffered an order of restitution of conjugal rights, but not complied with the decree. Thereafter, the respondent had approached the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

9. The petitioner had remained exparte in the said proceedings and by order dated 22.07.2021, the HMOP as well as the interlocutory application filed by the respondents were ordered. The petitioner had